Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:48:51 +0200, Niklas Holsti wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> Consider it this way, if _Type is felt appropriate then that is
>> semantically equivalent to types having a separate name space. The latter
>> could be introduced in Ada at any time, being fully backward compatible.
> 
> I'm not sure about the backward compatibility. For one thing, the 'Size 
> attribute may have a different value for a type and for an object of the 
> type. This means that given an object declaration "List : List", where 
> the latter List is a type name, the expression List'Size would be 
> ambiguous and could have a different value for the object List and the 
> type List.

Yes, it is ambiguous, but backward compatible.

Another disadvantage of a separate name space were barring types as
first-class objects. I don't know how actual the latter might be.

I have no clear opinion on separate name space for types. Clearly if
considered, it should be accompanied with the separate name spaces for
labels and package names.

Further, the problem of what to do with

   type T_Ptr is access T;
   type T_Ref is access constant T;
   type T_Class_Ptr is access T'Class;

will remain.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de